דְּבֵלָה שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לְתוֹךְ מֵי חַטָּאת וּנְטָלָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ, אִם יֶשׁ בָּהּ כַּבֵּיצָה, בֵּין טְמֵאָה בֵּין טְהוֹרָה, הַמַּיִם טְמֵאִין, וְהָאוֹכְלָהּ חַיָּב מִיתָה. אֵין בָּהּ כַּבֵּיצָה, הַמַּיִם טְהוֹרִין, וְהָאוֹכְלָהּ חַיָּב מִיתָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בִּטְהוֹרָה, הַמַּיִם טְהוֹרִים. הַטָּהוֹר לְחַטָּאת שֶׁהִכְנִיס רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ לְתוֹךְ מֵי חַטָּאת, נִטְמָא:
If a fig cake of <i>trumah</i> fell into the <i>chatat</i> waters, and one took it and ate it, if it [the amount be ate] contained [a volume] equivalent to an egg, [regardless of] whether it was pure or impure, the waters are impure and the eater is liable for the death penalty. If it did not contain [a volume] equivalent an egg, the waters are pure and the eater is liable for the death penalty. Rabbi Yose says: If it was pure, the waters are pure. One who is pure for <i>chatat</i>, if he stuck his head and the majority of his body into <i>chatat</i> waters, he is made impure.
Tosefta Terumot
A seah of impure terumah that fell inside one hundred seahs of pure terumah: Beit Shammai prohibit it (i.e., the entire mixture) and Beit Hillel permit it (alt., per Ramban and Rashba, "Beit Hillel say that it is lifted up at [a proportion of] one hundred and one [to one]"). Said Beit Hillel to Beit Shammai, "[Since] pure [terumah] is forbidden to non-Kohanim, and impure [terumah] is forbidden to Kohanim, just as pure [terumah] is lifted up [from a mixture of chullin and the remainder may be eaten by a non-Kohen], so too is impure [terumah] lifted up [in this case, and the remainder eaten by a Kohen]." Beit Shammai said to them, "No! If you said that with [respect to] pure [terumah] it is lifted up from within [a mixture of] chullin that is fed to non-Kohanim, you must say that with [respect to] impure [terumah], it is not lifted up from within [a mixture of] chullin to be fed to Kohanim." Beit Hillel said to them, "Behold, [with respect to] impure [terumah] that fell inside chullin, [since] you would rule that there is no lifting up from within [a mixture of] chullin to feed to non-Kohanim, [you must concede that] behold, it may [nonetheless] be lifted up." Beit Shammai said to them, "If you state [a principle] with [respect to] chullin, as to which they (i.e., the Sages) were extremely lenient, would you state [the same principle] with [respect to] terumah, as to which they were much less lenient?" Beit Hillel said to them, "With what was the Torah stringent, with feeding terumah to non-Kohanim, or with feeding terumah to Kohanim? With feeding terumah to non-Kohanim. [Thus], a pure [non-Kohen] that ate pure [terumah], and a pure [non-Kohen] that ate impure [terumah], and a pure or impure [non-Kohen] that ate impure [terumah] -- all [are liable for] the death penalty. But [with respect to] feeding terumah to Kohanim, a pure [Kohen] that ate pure [terumah], he is acting as he was commanded. A pure [Kohen] that ate impure [terumah], he [has violated] a positive commandment. And an impure [Kohen] that ate pure [terumah] or an impure [Kohen] that ate impure [terumah], he [as violated] a negative commandment. And are not these things subject to a kol v'chomer (a logical deduction)? So that if in a situation where the Torah was stringent -- in feeding terumah to non-Kohanim, behold, it is lifted up from inside chullin to be eaten by non-Kohanim, ought we not rule that [terumah] is lifted up inside chullin (alt., per MS Erfurt, "inside terumah,") to feed to Kohanim?" After they agreed [and adopted Beit Hillel's position], Rabbi Eliezer says, [the lifted-out portion] is separated as terumah and then burned. And the Sages say, it is nullified due to its insignificance [in comparison with the rest of the mixture, Ter. 5:4].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
